Slashdot Mirror


Secret Service Seeks Indymedia Logs

sunbird writes "The Justice Department has issued a subpoena seeking IP logs from Calyx, the ISP for nyc.indymedia.org, after individuals posted [1 | 2 | 3] the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of the RNC delegates. The subpoena was issued as part of an ongoing investigation of voter intimidation. As reported earlier in this Slashdot article, the Justice Department tried this before. Calyx, represented by the ACLU, responded, claiming that '[t]he only intimidation taking place here is the Secret Service intimidating people who speak out against the government.' [Full text of the letter available here] Read more: Indymedia.org | NYT"

32 of 825 comments (clear)

  1. what the heck? by BoldAC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    individuals posted [1 | 2 | 3] the names, addresses, and phone numbers of some of the RNC delegates.

    What I don't understand is the purpose of this release. People protesting and hacking in the name of the democratic party is only going to piss off the undecided people.

    Being a shmuck isn't any less evil even if you think you are doing it for the right reasons.

    If I were a moderate and had to choose between the party of McCain and the party of hackers and hippies... I know who I would pick.

    Obligate disclosure:
    Physician who is a democrat... so my morals are screwie already. (grin)

    1. Re:what the heck? by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the party of McCain

      I wish the Republican part were the "party of McCain". It feels more like the party of Jerry Falwell to me. I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat, but never for anyone in the Bush family.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    2. Re:what the heck? by thelaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what if someone in the bush family, say, barbara (the younger), came out of the closet, denounced 41 and 43, and announced candidacy for the green party nomination? would you vote for her then because of her ideas, or would you still hate her because of her family?

      i'm sorry if you think it's a foolish example, but i judge people by the content of their ideas and their character, not their lineage. that's what the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's was all about.

      jon

      --
      -- http://www.cerastes.org
    3. Re:what the heck? by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "People protesting and hacking in the name of the democratic party is only going to piss off the undecided people."

      Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. The freepers don't piss of the undecided, republicans calling democrats traitors does not piss off the undecided, the republicans calling democrats un american does not piss off the undecided and republicans saying that Kerry shot himself on purpose so he could get a purple heart don't piss off the undecided.

      Attacking your enemy with everything you have actually pleases the undecided. They want somebody with convictions who is willing to fight for their convictions.

      BTW get off that "party of McCain" shit. GW called McCain a failure and the republican party actually put our literature saying the McCain was not a war hero because he got captured and didn't accomplish his mission. They ran ads in NY saying McCain opposed breast cancer research!.

      They love McCain when McCain is bashing democrats but they don't hesitate to call him an unpatriotic coward when he dares to run against Bush.

      Republican party is no more the party of mccain then they are "compassionate".

      --
      evil is as evil does
    4. Re:what the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's been said before, and I really don't care.. But here's the obligatory:

      Where are GWB's service records? Medicals? Flight logs? Why can't anyone be found that served in the same unit as him?

      When people call him a 'deserter' it isn't because they think he joined the Guard to dodge the draft, they say it because they believe he joined the Guard, skipped a physical because he was snorting coke and went AWOL. Now, I don't have jack-shit to back those accusations, but that's what I've seen thrown around for a *LONG* time now.

      In any case, the aforementioned 'missing' records would quiet a lot of screaming howls from the rabid-left.

    5. Re:what the heck? by Darby · · Score: 5, Informative

      In any case, the aforementioned 'missing' records would quiet a lot of screaming howls from the rabid-left.

      About a month ago, the pentagon admitted they had the records. There is no recordof Bush being paid during that time, there is no record of him showing up for duty for a year.

      There are no more "missing" records.

  2. For those interested. by xenostar · · Score: 5, Informative

    NYC protest radio http://radio.socialtechnology.net/listen.html

  3. In corporate america by russint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Secret service logs YOU

    --
    ^^
  4. Re:No privacy for public officials! by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How are they public officials? They aren't agents of the government, they don't hold any sort of public office. They represent a political party, which is a separate entity from the government.

  5. absolutely wrong by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful


    The people posting this information are not representing constituencies. They don't have accountability. That's like saying the people who publish the phone book must also print their own home phone numbers in the phone books.
    1. Re:absolutely wrong by Performer+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahh... there you go thinking these people don't have accountability. Everyone has accountability for their actions.

      I find these anonymous posters complaining about intimidation beneath contempt. You think they weren't trying to intimidate those delegates? Not everyone at the conference is an elected representative.

      Veiled threats and publication of personal information designed soley to heap misfortune on the victim has nothing to do with 'speech'. Those details were published with the explicit hope that a mob would show up and intimidate the individuals targeted. Maybe with the added bonus of a stolen identity or two.

      Geeze, why must everyone pretend this is about speech and spout analogies when everyone on *both* sides knows exactly what was going on here. It had nothing to do with persuading delegates and we all know darned well that this only stiffens resolve on both sides.

  6. Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't even peacefully wear a "No Bush" T-Shirt to a political rally now adays without being arrested for trespassing.

    Your rights to free speech, and your expectations of privacy are gone now.

    Politicians as part of our so called "open" government should have no expectations of privacy. Just who is supposedly representing us.

    1. Re:Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim by deacon · · Score: 5, Informative
      Bzzzttt!!!

      Wrong.

      Thanks for playing.

      The people getting attacked in the protests are those who dare to disagree with the party line of the "Peace" and "Anti-War" crowd.

      I am talking about the Protest Warrior people that were attacked by "Patriots" in NYC.

      Link goes to video of the attack.

      The brave reader can also google for the urine filled balloons that "Peace Loving" protesters threw at police.

      Yuck.

    2. Re:Free Speech Was A Terrorist Victim by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes.

      Kerry was in Ohio and he took questions from the audience. Some of them were downright hostile. They asked him about his war record, his supposed flip flopping, his record on the senate. Nothing was cencored, nothing was off the table. He answered every question till the people ran out of questions.

      That's real balls.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  7. cryptome has the delegate info. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    john young, doing what he does best:

    http://cryptome.org

    this line is just filler

    as is this one.

  8. All the facts. by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 5, Informative

    This guy hacked the ProtestWarrior website and stole the info. It wasn't just delagets it was people registered at PW. Private emails, phone numbers, names addresses. Furthermore posted that information to the world on IndyMedia with the full aproval of it's editing staff. Then suggested that people call and harrass everyone on the list.

    I don't give a @#$% what your political offiliation is that is wrong. It is violation of PW servers with intent to do harm. It is violation of their covenant of privacey with their members. It is harasment of people because of their beliefs.

    It's one thing to protest, it's another to make personal attacks.

    We have secret ballot in America for a reason!

    I'll see you all at the polls Nov 2nd!

  9. Re:No privacy for public officials! by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our objectives are to: - Supply anti-RNC groups with data on the delegates to use in whatever way they see fit.

    Uhh... Reading something like that makes me not want to give the benefit of the doubt. What could any 'anti-RNC' groupie do with that new information that is not unethical or harassing? They don't vote Republican, so the delegate really isn't interested in what they have to say, so that's out.

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
  10. EEK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A few years back, a *friend* got me a membership in the RNC for my birthday.

    Does this mean that if I download this list I can sue myself for harrassment?

  11. Idiot by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you had bothered to read the ACLU page linked, you would have seen that the information that was posted is publicly available.

    --

    "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
  12. They're not necessarily public officials. by VT_hawkeye · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not solely by virtue of being delegates, anyway. The only definitive statement you can make is that these people were selected by (generally) the members of a political party to participate in ITS process for choosing a presidential election nominee, and that can be as private a process as the party wants it to be. The public gets its say in the general election (yes, I know there are exceptions, notably Louisiana and Virginia).

    Some of them probably are public officials (it's reasonably likely that if your Senator or Congressman is a Republican, s/he is there; some delegates also may be local office holders), but many others are like this girl, private, politically interested, citizens who do not hold elected office.

    The posting of their personal info is an invasion of privacy, but that's not why the DoJ is involved. They're involved because of the threats to the safety of these individuals just a few clicks away on the site in question.

  13. Indymedia by cozziewozzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever your stance on publishing these kinds of lists, Indymedia is one of the few remaining grassroots information outlets left on the internet, free from corporate money, sleaziness and lies. It would be a shame to have them shut down, and would really represent the end of the Internet as we knew it.

    Sure, there are Indymedia branches in many countries (mostly European) but if we get our own version of the Patriot act the way we're getting software patents and DMCA and other crappy corporate America anti-freedom laws, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with only CNN and other big-money propaganda machines. :-(

  14. Re:No privacy for public officials! by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is publishing their personal information any different than me drafting up a list of "red pinko communists" with your name on it knowing that it will cause you social stigma and may destroy your career and friendhips?

    Lets not kid ourselves, nobody is going to use this information to send these men fruitbaskets or singing telegrams.

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
  15. Re:No privacy for public officials! by e9th · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about those who are merely registered Republican voters? Are they too de facto government officials? Where do we draw the line? Poll watchers?

  16. In diverse rest-of-the-world by arose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NSA logs YOU.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  17. Say your mother is a Republican... by Invisible+Now · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You've seen the convention delegates. A lot of them are just little old ladies in straw hats with red, white, and blue LEDs blinking in their corny jewelry. Remind me of my mom...

    Even if you feel they are seriously misguided, if you want to influence them you do it with kindness and respect. Whether they are really being put at some risk by having their names, hotel rooms and phone numbers posted really depends on the random action (Or hopefully lack of action) by some crazy wingnut. Would you want your mother getting a threatening call at 3am? The secret Service has a legitimate concern for their wellfare.

    As a protest action it was stupid and arguablly endangering. About as self-indulgent and counter-productive as breaking windows and setting fires at the WTO.

    Certainly, it seems to me to be pointlessly cruel. The fact that the perpetrators hide behind anonymity rather than stand up and explain themselves betrays a coward's conscience.

    As Gandhi, King and Mandella proved - effective change is possible... RTFM!

    --

    "Knowing everything doesn't help..."

  18. Re:No privacy for public officials! by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...after all the children must be secured.

    I don't need the government to secure children, thank you very much. I've got duct tape.

    KFG

  19. Re:Two things: by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, let's see: first of all, you bring up a case that you actually know nothing about (the Florida case that you mentioned) and used the unsupported supposition that DoJ is doing nothing about it as evidence for your case.

    Next, you link to the Georgia GOP website, which lists names but does not list addresses or phone numbers, which may not be publicly accessible if, for example, a person's phone number is unlisted.

    Then you attach vitriolic labels like "racist" and "classist", which really have nothing to do with the reality of this case, in an attempt to make DoJ seem more "evil" than it really is.

    And then somebody mods you interesting? I'd lean more toward funny, myself.

  20. micro-HOWTO: anonymous logging by Yeb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Admins, here's a few tweaks you can make to your configs to protect the privacy of your users.

    Apache
    ======
    In httpd.conf:

    LogFormat "noip - - %t \"%r\" %>s %b \"%{Referer}i\" \"%{User-Agent}i\" %T %V" noip
    CustomLog /var/log/httpd/access_log noip

    This will keep the format of the logs the same as the default, but instead of
    having an IP in the logs it will read "noip". The logs can still be processed by
    programs such as webalizer.

    Squid
    =====
    In squid.conf add:

    client_netmask 0.0.0.0

    pure-ftpd
    =========
    When compiling, run ./configure using --without-iplogging

  21. Indymedia did not do this by br00tus · · Score: 5, Informative

    I see several posts here saying Indymedia did this, Indymedia posted the names. Indymedia did NOT post the names. Indymedia is like Slashdot, ANYONE can post. Blaming Indymedia for something a poster said would be like saying CmdrTaco was supporting what some anonymous Slashdot poster said, or blaming the Usenet cabal for a posting by some anonymous Usenet poster. I just wanted to make this clear as several people have said here that Indymedia took this position. I don't think they understand what Indymedia is. Yesterday I read through a dozen posts by people who hate the protestors on the nyc.indymedia.org site. nyc.indymedia.org is in many ways just like Slashdot in terms of anonymous posters and so forth. They can't be blamed for every bozo that comes along.

  22. your posts on slashdot aren't a political platform by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Informative


    As someone who might have chosen to be in the Republican Party, don't you think it might be helpful to be able to contact your delegate before they ratify the party platform or nominate their candidates? In Texas, the GOP ratified its state party platform containing the following planks:
    • p.17: "The Party supports the termination of bilingual education programs..."
    • p.15: "We call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other federal agency."
    • p.10: Celebrating Traditional Marriage calls for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and opposes the legalization of "sodomy" ie homosexuality.
    • p. 2 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act."
    • p.8, Christian Nation: "The Republican Party of Texas affirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation ..."
    Upon finding out that you might agree or disagree with some of these elements, you probably would like to contact your national delegate to urge that person to listen to your input before the national party platform is finalized. The Indymedia list seems to be a valuable reference for doing so.
  23. Re:The real test of whether its intimidation or no by crush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bullshit. The Secret Service are requesting the IP addresses of all users of the site. It's called a fishing expedition. Lots of people use nyc.indymedia.org, didn't post the information (not that there's anything legally wrong with the information) and don't want the Secret Service sniffing around their IPs like a mutt after a bitch in heat.

    If you take the trouble to read the articles you'll see the FBI tried this shit with indymedia previously after an oh-so-convenient-anonymous-post put up bogus information that the FBI claimed was a "security leak".

    Pull the other one.

  24. Re:Hypocrisy-Check Time by Darby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.

    If there wasn't a vicious attack on his record by people who have all been revealed as liars, he wouldn't have to.
    Given that his opponent was a deserter, it shows McCain's lack of integrity in supporting Bush.

    Your respect was probably going to last only as long as McCain ripped on his own party. Somehow, I don't think he's weeping for the loss of your endorsement.

    Where do you get this crazy horseshit. You seem to think party loyalty is some kind of absolute as well.
    Other than in the last election, I have never voted for a Republican *or* for a Democrat. The parties are the major problem as evidenced by McCain.

    I respected him because he did serve his country with honor. I respected him because I think he really was trying to clean up with his finance reform act.

    I respected him because he seemed to work with people to achieve valid goals regardless of their party.

    By the way, here's a standards check: do you also respect Zell Miller or Ed Koch or Ron Silver, liberals all, for going against their party because their convictions tell them to?

    I respect any elected official who is working for the best of the people of this country. I respect them when they stand up for freedom (not Bush's Orwellian vision of it). I respect them when they stand on the side of We the People and against corporate interests. I have no problem with corporations in general, but when it comes to a choice between my rights and a corporations, I have no respect for anybody who sells me and my country out regardless of which party they are a member of or which one they vote with on a given issue.

    I support the second amendment so I must be a Republican.
    But I support the separation of church and state since this country was founded in part by Christians who were fleeing oppression by other fucking christians. Then of course they started burning innocent people alive. So it is quite obviously essential that religion can have no voice in the government of a free society.
    So I absolutely can't be a Republican since they are the party who wants religious rule.

    I know that government has no business of any sort legislating what happens inside my or anybody else's body, so the Republicans are far worse since they desperately want to shove their noses right up everybody's ass.
    Both parties are fucked on drug policy.

    I believe that some amount of government is necessary to stop some of these crazy fuckers and to prevent corporations from absolutely raping us, so Libertarianism is out too.

    So I respect anybody who makes it into office who actually wants to work for freedom, which in this day and age seems to mean they have to work against both of the major parties.

    My money says you're calling them sellouts. I'd be willing to bet "respect" and "conviction" is a one way street for you

    Again with the accusations when you don't know a damn thing about me.
    You are dead wrong.
    Again.

    Did you ever consider that maybe he thinks his party is the best one for the country? I mean, he's a REPUBLICAN Senator for a reason.

    Not for one second. He knows he would make a far better president. Given this administration's record, nobody with a scrap of patriotism could support them. They have fought tooth and nail against everything this country claims to stand for.

    And the current administration has nothing in common with the Republican platform.
    They pay lip service to "small government", while they are increasing it to an incredible degree mortgaging our children's income while driving future income for any but the wealthiest down.

    Creating police state agencies led by some of the worst criminals in our nation's history (Poindexter, Rumsfeld et al)

    Tearing down our terrorism inv